I am writing to you about House/Senate Bill No. [or] the proposed ordinance on [specify details of ordinance]. I am strongly opposed to this [bill/ordinance] and ask that you vote against it. Passage of this bill will not address the root cause of the problem, and it will have a negative impact on responsible, law abiding dog owners while those who do not abide by the law will simply continue to do so.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Respectfully,

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

I am writing in response to the pending resolution regarding regulations specific to [targeted breed] with the use of breed specific legislation in [your town].

ANY dog can become a problem for the public if the dog is allowed to run loose and is not supervised. The key word is responsible. Webster's definition of responsibility is: Being legally or ethically accountable for the welfare or care of another. To say [targeted breed] are dangerous does not address the real problem - irresponsible owners.

Please reconsider and retract your breed specific resolution. Please do not punish responsible owners who maintain their dogs as companions and members of the family; dogs that do not pose a threat to anyone. Why should we be punished simply because irresponsible owners of the same breed of dog have not "ethically and legally" protected others from injury?

Please provide our community with non-breed specific legislation that is competent to regulate the irresponsible owners and protect those who maintain their dogs safely and humanely. Please provide definitions for vicious and/or potentially dangerous with measurable actions which cannot be questioned or misinterpreted due to bias.

The irresponsible owners do not care what breed of dog they lose the right to own - they'll find another breed of dog to fit their needs. As a responsible owner, I ask you to seriously consider the impact of breed-specific legislation.

Respectfully,

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforceable, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a resolution has been placed before you that fails all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforceable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.

The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs, specifically [targeted breed]. These breeds have been the subject of irresponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited.

The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1 Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100 times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.

Taken as a whole, [targeted breed] have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, and family companions for years. A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls," concluded in part that: - statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. - focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:

1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue: responsible ownership.

2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to specific breeds.

Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever its owner makes of it....nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is "blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog attacks a person, the law should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.

Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding, responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.

Respectfully,

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforceable, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY i.e., city council, etc.,)that would fail all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. .

The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited. However, these very breeds as a whole have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

Our Country was not founded on the restriction and punishment of the masses based on the actions of a few... when has this changed?

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls", concluded in part that:

...statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, ..when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly. .. focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of this and other studies, we urge you to take the following actions:

1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue, that of responsible ownership.

2. Actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets, such as a good non-breed specific dangerous dog law.

We suggest that the appropriate policy should be "blame the owner, not the dog." Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets.

Bottom line: the legislation proposed will not only be unfair for responsible citizens but it addresses the wrong problem. Voting for this proposal as it stands only harms the law abiding responsible dog owner.

Sincerely,

YOUR NAME

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

I understand your concern and desire to protect your constituents from the awful tragedy a dangerous dog can cause. You, I am sure, intend to do so with the law you are (INSERT drafting/proposing/enforcing). However, all you will do with such a law is turn thousands of pet loving voters against you personally and you will be viewed as those terrible people who will cruelly deprive animal lovers of their well behaved pets.

I am sure this is not your intention. To avoid making such a terrible mistake in your proposed legislation I suggest you contact the American Kennel Club in New York and ask for their draft version of a dangerous dog law. This law has been enacted in several states and provides the general populace ample protection from dangerous dogs while still permitting the people who properly train and socialize their pets to retain them.

The loss of a child is a terrible thing but many people will claim the loss of a beloved pet is very close emotionally to it. Banning or restricting a specific breed will not keep children or adults from being injured by dogs that have not been properly trained it will merely change the type of dog that is kept by those who desire the protection of a guardian breed. As it is the owners who control the training and socialization of the puppies they purchase or adopt they are the ones responsible for those dogs that learn to bite people.

Neither (INSERT breed/s here) are dangerous dogs per se rather they are breeds that are popular not only with those devoted to them and their proper care but those who wish a macho image. Prior to this decade other dog breeds were in similar situations for example Dobermans, German Shepherds and ChowChows, all breeds that were victims of great popularity and subsequent poor handling by less than competent owners bringing them an undeserved reputation as a 'dangerous' breed. Banning (INSERT breed/s here) will merely hasten the upswing in popularity of some other breed.

Controlling the people who will abuse the owner dog relationship through ignorance or otherwise is a far better and wiser solution to the problem these owners present to their neighbors no matter what breed of dog they own.

Respectfully,

(Your signature)

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

This is in response to the pending legislation in your jurisdiction as to regulating vicious/potentially dangerous dogs via breed specific legislation.

All dogs are dangerous under certain circumstances. Only when the owner or custodian of the animal does not properly train and confine his/her animal, does that animal pose a potential risk to human safety. A common ingredient to the dog personality is to guard and protect it's owner and property. ANY dog with that personality can become a problem for the public, if that dog is allowed to run loose and is not responsibly supervised. The key word here is responsibility (per Webster, definition of responsibility: Being legally or ethically accountable for the welfare or care of another.) To say certain breeds of dogs are dangerous is not a complete statement. All dogs can be dangerous if in the hands of an irresponsible owner.

Please retract your breed specific bill/ordinance. Don't punish all of us responsible owners that maintain our dogs as companions and members of our families. We can and do maintain our dogs so they do not pose a threat to anyone, why should we be denied our companions simply because irresponsible owners of the same breed of dog have not "ethically and legally" protected others from injury?

There are several samples of existing non-breed specific legislation (i.e., the State of California) that is competent to regulate the irresponsible owners and not punish those that maintain their dogs safely and humanely. I, as a responsible dog owner, ask that you seriously consider the impact of breed specific legislation. The irresponsible owners don't care what breed of dog they lose the right to own... they'll find another dog breed to fit their needs. I deeply care, because it threatens me with the loss of a family member.

Sincerely,

(Your signature)

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforceable, economical, and reasonably fair. Recently, a bill (CITE BILL NUMBER HERE) has been placed before (RELEVANT BODY i.e., city council, etc.,) that fails all of these tests. This legislation is motivated by fear and lack of relevant knowledge. It is discriminatory, impractical, and unenforceable. Worst of all, it will not solve the problem. I urge you to vote against it.

The proposed bill would restrict the ownership of certain types of dogs, specifically (INSERT breed/s here). These breeds have been the subject of irresponsponsible and sensationalist reporting across the country. The media and the inexperienced would have you believe that these breeds are vicious and should be prohibited.

The plain fact is that there is no relationship between the type of the dog and the number of incidents. If your town has 100 German Shepherds and 1 Poodle, you'll soon learn that the German Shepherds are responsible for 100 times as many incidents as the Poodles. Does this mean that German Shepherds are intrinsically vicious? Of course not.

Taken as a whole, the (INSERT breed/s here) breeds have proven their stability and good canine citizenry by becoming 'Search & Rescue dogs, Therapy dogs working inside hospitals, professional Herding dogs and family companions for years.

A five year study published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, pg 1077, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "pit bulls," concluded in part that:

... statistics do not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous, - when legislation is focused on the type of dog it fails, because it is ... unenforceable, confusing, and costly... focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible owners.

In light of the studies, the facts, and the discriminatory nature of the proposed legislation, we urge you to take the following actions:

1. Reject the current legislation, which is contrary to fact and distracts from the real issue: responsible ownership.

2. Work to establish reasonable guidelines for responsible pet ownership, and encourage legislation that supports owner responsibility without reference to specific breeds.

Study after study shows that ANY dog, regardless of breed, will be whatever its owner makes of it... nothing more, nothing less. Owners can and should take responsibility for their pets. We suggest that the appropriate policy is "blame the owner, not the dog." If a dog attacks a person, the law should treat it as though the owner attacked that person.

Voting for this proposal as it stands will harm both the law abiding, responsible dog owners and the victims, but it won't solve anything.

Sincerely,

(Your signature)

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.

Hello, my name is ____________ (your name here), and I am the proud owner of ____________(name your animal/s here). As a responsible pet owner, I feel very strongly about the many anti-pet laws being passed at an alarming rate -- in the name of public safety -- in cities and states across the nation. As a registered voter of the United States, it appears to me that little thought or regard for the constituents of this country are taken into consideration before these anti-pet laws are passed.

Rather than eliminating pet overpopulation, needless euthanasia, and dangerous dogs, these laws actually exacerbate the problems the laws are professing to eliminate. It is my opinion that these anti-pet laws passed in the name of public safety are more definitively directed at breeders and others who have animals for racing, show, and sporting events rather than protecting the public or encouraging people to be responsible owners. More importantly, I feel they are directed at eliminating the right of Americans to own their animals by placing owners in the position of guardianship only.

Lawmakers are not only mistakenly oversimplifying the problems with this type of legislation but they are removing American constituents' freedoms under the guise of good and responsible animal care. Breed Specific Legislation (BSL), Mandatory spay/neuter (MSN) and micro chipping are not going to make irresponsible people responsible, stop dangerous dogs, protect the public, or end useless euthanasia and pet overpopulation. Rather, quite the contrary will ensue -- enabling a grossly huge black market as has not ever been experienced in this country to date. On top of this, our American freedoms and civil liberties are being removed as a result, which is in direct violation of our Constitution.

In the hopes that lawmakers will study reliable and factual information on the subject of BSL and other anti-pet laws, an excellent five year study was published in the Cincinnati Law Review in 1982, vol. 53, which specifically considered both Rottweilers and "Pit Bulls" and concluded in part that:

... the statistics did not support the assertion that any one breed was dangerous.

... when legislation is focused on the type of dog, it fails because it is unenforceable, confusing and costly.

... Focusing legislation on dogs that are "vicious" distracts attention from the real problem, which is irresponsible dog/animal ownership.

In light of this and other studies I have read, I urge you to actively pursue legislation that would render owners liable for the actions of their pets. The appropriate policy should be "hold the owner, not the dog, not the animal, accountable." It is not the automobile that kills innocent people; it is the driver of that vehicle. People commit crimes and laws are written to punish criminal acts. Therefore, we need stronger laws to punish irresponsible, neglectful dog owners who fail to properly train and socialize their dogs. We more importantly need to be able to enforce the laws that were put in place a long time ago, such as leash laws and proper animal care laws, rather than introducing more and more stringent laws that strip away our American rights and freedoms.

Government needs the guidance of responsible, law abiding citizens. Otherwise, it will be the most reactive elements of society that end up writing the laws. I caution you not to repeat the sadly misguided decision made by the City Council of Denver. On May 5th, 2005, they voted to enact a breed ban which resulted in the seizure and killing of innocent family dogs. Their attempt to "protect" the community has caused immeasurable grief and sacrifices to many Denver residents. Coming into homes to remove dogs, based on breed alone, is mirroring government tactics taken in Communist and dictatorial countries rather than a government for the people, by the people of the people common to a democracy.

To be useful, legislation must be effective, enforceable, economical, and reasonably fair. Any form of legislative discrimination would fail in all of these areas, punish responsible animal owning citizens and worst of all will not protect the public from dangerous, irresponsible humans and their animals who are the product of their environment. Please remember that any dog can bite and seriously injure people, regardless of its breed. Only with the proper training and socialization can we ensure that all dogs will be welcomed neighbors in society. This is the responsibility and duty of every dog and animal owner. Citizens who fail this task are the ones who put the public at risk â€“ not the animals! Animals don't know, or care, what laws are. To be responsible legislators, you must make laws that apply to people, not animals.

Breed-specific legislation punishes certain breeds or classifications of dogs and their owners while overlooking bad behavior in other breeds. While it is true that a few individuals of these so-called "dangerous" dog breeds have done an astonishing amount of damage when they bite, statistically very few have ever bitten a person. Punishing the "pit bulls" and their owners because of their potential for greater damage than a Poodle is like banning all buses in favor of passenger cars. There are advantages and disadvantages to either mode of transportation but we can not expect a car to serve the same purpose as the bus.

We find it horrifying when a person is maimed or killed by a dog, especially when the person is a child. However we rationalize our reaction to the incident, we must remain rational enough to place the responsibility for the tragedy directly on the people involved, not on the animal itself. The circumstances that make a dog bite a person vary with the situation, training, and/or environment which the dog encounters or lives in. This stark fact remains: all breeds and varieties of dogs can, will, and do bite.

The problem lies with the people breeding, owning, or training dogs for purposes for which were not intended. Pit Bulls and their kin were designed and bred to fight each other, not people. Due to the tenacity and physicality of the Bull and Terrier breeds, people have decided to make them one of the primary representations of a bad dog. People use the dog to compensate for their own insecurity and to promote a macho image. These people and their dogs should be avoided. Backyard breeders have caught on to the popularity of these kinds of dogs and are now turning out litter after litter of ill-tempered mongrels just to make a quick buck. The wise buyer avoids these dogs at all costs.

Ignorant, dangerous owners and breeders are attempting to turn the pit bull breeds into vicious guard dogs. The breed standard, however, considers human-aggression in these breeds to be a serious fault. The pit bull that aggresses against a person is not a true representative of the breed. It is entirely the owner's fault if their mongrel has the chance to bite or attack someone. Responsible owners and breeders work hard to uphold the standard of loyalty and affection that should be present in the bulldog breeds.

Any Bull and Terrier breed that threatens, attacks, bites, or even shows aggression toward a person, other than in defense of its own people, should be neutered at the very least or, preferably, should be destroyed. The danger in owning or being in contact with such animal cannot be over emphasized. If, however, a Teacup Poodle exhibits the same behavior it should receive the same treatment. Aggression toward humans is not a behavior that should be tolerated in any dog. Dachshunds and Chihuahuas, however small, are still capable of inflicting serious wounds, and even killing a baby or child.

Similarly, owners who permit their dog to aggress, bite, or attack any person should pay for it. Breed-specific legislation does nothing to deal with the entire problem of dog attacks. It only focuses on a dog's appearance, without regard to individual temperament or owner responsibility.

Sincerely,

(signature)

There's a fine line between genius and insanity. I have erased this line.